User talk:EhJJ

212.200.241.72
212.200.241.72 has had at leat one named account (still in use as of December 2008) and one other static IP in the past. While there is no requirement to have a named account, using multiple accounts is only allowed AFAIK under WP:SOCK. This user's excuses do not fall in the 'LEGIT' category. NJGW (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I wouldn't generally consider two IP accounts as "sockpuppetry", the RfA about it (Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings) quite clearly states that users should be have a stable account for project debates (such as a proposed policy!) (EhJJ)TALK 20:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern is the continued use of the named account as well as a history of using more than one static IP for non-"legit" purposes. Not having a named account and then editing from home/office/Iphone is legit, but this isn't what's going on.  NJGW (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * NJGW, take a lesson in DHCP. Stop inventing WP rules. Stop bothering me.
 * EhJJ, learn about "...the inappropriate persistence of user:NJGW..." from the past. Do we need to go through similar nonsense again? 212.200.241.72 (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting... 212, aren't you the one who persisted in hounding SA after "vanishing", kept trying to get Jehochman sanctioned for doing his job (and even followed him around enough to pop up again later), and tried to get a retired user "preventatively" indef blocked. As for DHCP, I don't think it's too much to ask (though clearly you do) that regular editors stick to one account to avoid confusion and misunderstandings.  NJGW (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your logic equals to that of a 6 year old child, at best. I never "vanished" for one. Jehochman didn't do his "job" for two. You ask way too much. Who are you to ask me anything. Stop bothering me. Out of 15 million pages and 2.7 million articles on Wikipedia, you have to insist in "improving" this one? Stop bothering me. Get a life. 212.200.241.72 (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ...followed him around... Arbcom elections were advertised all over WP, so didn't really have to follow anyone around, only to look through 2 dozen candidates. 212.200.241.72 (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry. Fortyniners9999 (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy talk
Please explain why you have apparently summarised other editors' comments in your own words. I have not seen this done before and so it seems peculiar. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have posted a reply to your question on Talk:Homeopathy. (EhJJ)TALK 18:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I well understand the problem but am uncomfortable with your solution. We already have some difficulty with the differing POVs on this issue.  If editors take upon themselves to rewrite others' comments in their own words then we may soon descend into chaos as editors fight over the exact expression or interpretation of their comments.  My view is that talk page comments should be inviolate for this reason. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To avoid any problems, I have restored the original text to the article talk page, but have also left the link to the refactored page (which I will continue to work on later). (EhJJ)TALK 18:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have said more at the talk page but will be offline for some time now. I fully accept that your initiative was an interesting and good faith attempt to help matters along and, if the ground rules are well-established and agreed, I might well support it.  Good night. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for assuming good faith. Having given the whole idea a second thought, I've decided that it will be far too much work for questionable gain. I have struck out our discussion of this on the Talk:Homeopathy page to avoid confusion for other editors, as it is no longer relevant to the larger discussion; I hope you don't mind. Sincerely, (EhJJ)TALK 21:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the barnstar. You seem especially smart as you figured out yourself where best to post it.  You should offer your services at Third opinion, RFC or one of the other dispute resolution noticeboards. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Cold calling
I'm afraid I beat you to the offering of a 3O on this article, but by all means feel free to weigh in as long as you are in total agreement with my findings. Thanks for your cooperation. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it does appear to me that my edit beat your edit  by a good 11 minutes. However, I do agree with it as much as I agree with my opinion also. (EhJJ)TALK 23:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * DARN!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

E=MC² (Mariah Carey album)
I see why you would think that, but the problem is that only users who agree with me responded, but those who obviously disagree with me (User:JuStar, User:LauraAndrade88) keep reverting my changes without even trying to discuss,...

E.g.:
 * 
 * 
 * 

I hope you understand my problem now. Thanks for taking time. Reidlos (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I haven't reverted anything since 09:35, 19 January 2009 expect for vandalism etc., cause I thought I'd watch it for a while and maybe the whole situation would resolve on its own. Reidlos (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So my edits were reverted again by user 89.214.136.238 as you may noticed. I thought I would ask for your guidance before doing anything. What should I do? Reidlos (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry to barge in like this, but can you please come to Talk:E=MC² (Mariah Carey album)?  It seems as though User:Reidlos and I are seen as vandals, and people are threatening to report us.  :P  I thought a non-involved person can come give a third opinion.  Thanks in advance!  :) SKS2K6 (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I've already written on the talk page. Please note: I am not taking sides. As long as everyone contributes in good faith, I will support those editors. So far, it seems like the two of you are doing your best to improve the article within Wikipedia's policies and goals, and so I fully support you in that endeavour! I'll keep an eye on that page, but let me know if you have any disputes on your personal talk page or are "reported" anywhere. (EhJJ)TALK 03:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all I wanted to thank you for being dedicated to this matter and helping out. So I read the E=MC² discussion page and thought that the problems were resolved and reverted the edits back to my last version (of course not including reasonable edits), but still User:JuStar undid my revision. I thought I would let you know, cause you seem to know better what to do. Reidlos (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The current version of the article is the same one that JuStar and a few others always revert to. I know it must be kinda annoying me writing on your talk page everytime someone edits something and I would revert them myself but I'm still very insecure about reverting articles (after getting blocked for it). Thanks. Reidlos (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess the message on JuStar's talk page didn't help, cause he/she is still reverting edits. Reidlos (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I was hoping to open up some dialogue, but instead I have reported JuStar at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. We'll see what the administrators think. (EhJJ)TALK 14:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok! Reidlos (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess JuStar isn't the only one: Reidlos (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For your information: The thread Refusal to discuss or reach consensus by JuStar you created on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents was moved to the archives. I thought I would let you know for the case you did not noticed. Regards, Reidlos (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm going to wait for another edit or revert (unless there's discussion) and then take it to the next level of dispute resolution, which is informal mediation by the Mediation Cabal. (EhJJ)TALK 22:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * JuStar reverted the edits again, but this time she/he responded on the discussion page (E=MC²), but as you see she/he doesn't really explain why she/he wants the article the way it is right now. Reidlos (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sry for bothering you, but I wondered: What happened to the attempt of dispute resolution through informal or formal mediation? I'm sorry if this question sounds as if I were trying to criticize you and your work. I'm just wonderin'. Thanks, Reidlos (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Mediation only works if both parties agree to enter into it in good faith. We needed to give them a few days to respond as to whether they would. So far, since posting the suggestion, there have been no edits to the article, so it would "appear" to be resolved. So, you're welcome to keep editing. If they revert your edits again without comment on the talk page, I'll take that to imply that they are refusing to enter into discussion and will open up a Request for Arbitration. Those should only be done when all effort has been made to use alternate routes to mediation and they have been consistently ignored. (EhJJ)TALK 12:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wanted to inform you that my edits were reverted (again by User Justar). Regards, Reidlos (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! ^^ Reidlos (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since there has been no recent dispute, I can't really post it on a notice board. If you know what part you'd like to change, feel free to do so and make sure you fill in the edit summary. If JuStar reverts it, I'll warn him again, undo his revert and see what happens. I don't want to start an edit war, but there needs to be some controversy for me to be able to ask an administrator to step in and enforce Wikipedia's rules. I can't say "a week ago he did this one edit". If you feel strongly that your edit is needed, you'll need to put some effort into making it by discussing on the article talk page or JuStar's user talk page. If he ignores your attempts to discuss (as he has done before), I'll nominate him for disciplinary action. But this should really be a last resort and not something I'm keen on doing. (EhJJ)TALK 14:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to make some reasonable edits and even left a message on his talk page, but he/others reverted it and wrote on my talk page "he would report me the next time". I guess he tries to control the article or something... Sorry for bothering you all the time. Regards and have a nice day. Reidlos (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * LauraAndrade88 wrote back to me on the talk page. Why don't you try convincing her that your edits are an improvement to the article and see if you can form consensus. If JuStar is the only editor opposing your edits, and there are three users who agree with your edits (LauraAndrade88, and SKS2K6 from before, and (to some extent) me), then we should be able to keep it that way. Right now LauraAndrade88 thinks you're just trying to damage the article, please explain to her why your edits are going to make the article better. This has been getting a bit frustrating, but I hope we can get it resolved using the normal channels. JuStar clearly is not interested in discussing anything (evidenced by his lack of edits on Talk pages), but I think LauraAndrade88 is someone you could convince to gain clear consensus. (EhJJ)TALK 13:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks! Reidlos (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Talk:E%3DMC²_(Mariah_Carey_album) Regards, Reidlos (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess all the talk didn't help either. Reidlos (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to see that. You should ask someone on WP:MEDCAB for advice (they have more experience in formal dispute resolution. If needed, this may need to go before the WP:ARBCOM because JuStar seems to be editing without caring about consensus or willing to enter discussion, and that is not appropriate. Good luck! (EhJJ)TALK 01:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion
BTW should I have started a "new section" or placed this template somewhere else on your talk page?... Davesmith au (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Anywhere is fine. Usually at the bottom of the talk page. (EhJJ)TALK 16:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Alstom PRIMA Diesel Locomotives
I'm sorry. I should not have nominated the article for WP:3O. I, actually, wanted to nominate it for a reference-check. I found teams for POV-check and "Guild of Copy-editors" to copy-edit articles. But finding no specific team for the purpose, I, instead requested a WP:3O. Is there any team to check the sources, mainly, if they are reliable or not. Thanks- Ravichandar My coffee shop 03:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I often think of WP:3O as a good place to get informal advice for dispute resolution. The Wikiprojects that you are probably looking for are WikiProject critical source examination and/or WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. Please post to only one of these projects. Good luck and happy editing! (EhJJ)TALK 15:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Jussi Halla-aho
Hi EhJJ. I notice you haven't yet provided a 3O on this article. If you intend providing a 3O, no worries. Otherwise, you may want to ask the parties concerned to relist it. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 02:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Arg, thanks for reminding me! BTW, good luck on your RfA! (EhJJ)TALK 03:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice job! Must admit that I was curious about this one. Not a typical 3O at all. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 02:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Despite adding emphasis to keep it short, please! (hidden HTML), that was quite a lot to go over, research and consider. In any case, I hope it's helpful. Feel free to add a "fourth opinion" if you feel like it. Again, congrats on the RfA nom and so-far strong support. (EhJJ)TALK 02:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Invitation for WP:MED
''If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal. If you are interested in contributing more to medical related articles you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (signup here).'' --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Hypertension
Sorry for the late reply. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

More sockpuppets of Petergriffin9901?
Greetings. I'd like to solicit your opinion. Would you think that this discussion could be considered evidence that is a sock of ? Furthurmore, based on edit history (persistent addition of unsourced inflated sales figures) and geolocate (Miami Florida), it it likely that both may be additional sockpuppets of ? -- Tcncv (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While the discussion you linked to does suggest that made the follow up as, their contribution history are otherwise wildly different. It does seem that 72.28.159.237 may be a sock of , based on the edits that were made, or at least is an established user of some sort and is up to no good. I'd just keep an eye on 72.28.159.237 and have that IP blocked if it's used for vandalism. You could consider asking Frcm1988 if the reply on Ericorbit's talk page was his and see what response you get. Frcm1988 has been on Wikipedia for a long time and has many good edits. I'd think it's more likely that a vandal IP replied than that Frcm1988 has multiple personalities (and would use an IP for his alter ego). (EhJJ)TALK 04:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Their histories do seem vastly different, but after chasing Mr. Hyde all over the discography charts the last few days, I thought maybe a slip-of-the-edit had indeed reveled the identity of Dr. Jekyll.  I have no doubt that .237 is another Petergriffin9901 but that user seems to change IPs regularly.  Lately I've been working with another apparent new user - Balto9902, but now think that I've been duped and now think this is yet another manifestation of Petergriffin9901.  I just now noticed the name similarity.  -- Tcncv (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

3O
Awww EhJJ, don't you want to join us at the Sanger talk page ;) ... seriously though, sorry about not de-listing myself. I've never had to post to a board for help before, and when Rvix (sp) showed up I should have removed.  If you do happen to read through all that mess, and you have any personal advise on how I can handle things better I am open to any suggestions.  Even if it's criticizing something I said, I'm quite open to learning how to deal with this type of thing.  There have been a couple folks take a look and just say "no way am I getting involved in this" ... can't say I blame them.  If I wasn't already involved, and it wasn't for Sanger's part in Wikipedia history, I'd walk away myself. ... Well anyway, thanks for letting be blow off a little steam on your talk page, and  sorry about not de-listing myself. — Ched (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Greeting of vandals
I am wondering why you are greeting a vandal instead of issuing a vandalism warning. He was probably, like, ROTFLMAO OMG, let me pwn them more. - 7-bubёn >t 02:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A combination of WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Rolling back their edits is easy and I can always put a uw-bv tag on and request they be blocked if their vandalism continues. Feel free to put that tag on there if you want. I don't think that user is coming back anyway. P.S. I do keep WP:SPADE in mind, too. (EhJJ)TALK 03:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explanations of your position. Further: While some of his edits do look plausible albeit suspicious, some others are clear jokes. As for not coming back, IMO on the contrary, a half-page greeting is an encouragement to a joker to come back and wreak more havoc, assuming that his fist attempt was successful. A polite level-1 warning (uw-t1, etc.) is quite within BITE and AGF: they were designed specifically with these policies in mind. - 7-bubёn >t 03:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:3O for Red Clay (disambiguation)
Thanks for your third opinion on Red Clay (disambiguation), BTW. Things meandered through more public channels after that, in a typically unpredictable fashion, but I think the third opinion was key in getting out of the rut. The discussion to that point had started to feel surreal in its detachment from salient logic, and your perspective was grounding. Thanks. ENeville (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User: 58.137.113.82‎
If I may make a suggestion, warning the above user is completely and totally pointless. This is one of our long-term vandals and years of warnings have done nothing for them. If you'd like some background information, see User:Natalie Erin/Cheri DiNovo vandal. User:Bearcat has also had extensive dealings with them.

My suggestion is to report them to AIV or one of the administrators familiar with them as soon as you come across their edits. The only remotely effective method here is to block on sight and semi-protect the user and user talk page. Natalie (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments
I have raised comments you made in a past discussion here. To insure that I did not misrepresent you and your opinions, could you please look them over, and if you consider them inappropriate please let me know and I’ll strike them from my post. Thanks -- Domer48 'fenian'  19:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(LBMK)_layer
File:Langmuir_Blodgett_Möbius_Kuhn_(LBMK)_layer.jpg The Journal (Wiley-VCH) and Author (Dietmar Möbius) gave permission to use the image in Wikipedia as indicated. My question was if the implementation into Wikipedia (i.e. tag) was correct. I am not yet familiar with this Copyright-specific phrasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.28.29 (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC) CarsiEi (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll reply at WP:Media copyright questions. (EhJJ)TALK 16:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just saying thanks
Hi. Thank you for all your help with my first wikipedia efforts. That is all! A Friendly Nerd (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I could help. Well done. It's good to see that you've caught a hold of the ideals of WP:Be bold! (EhJJ)TALK 03:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Have A Nice Day


Reidlos (talk) has given you a large glass of milk, for assisting with a very messy article. Milk somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, cool, refreshing goodness of milk by adding {{subst:Glass of milk}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Reidlos (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Pwnfag
I told J.delanoy. Thanks for posting that message. Cheers.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  20:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday (two days late...)
I saw from here that it's been exactly two years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Women in Distress for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Women in Distress is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Women in Distress until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In response to your message
I did no such thing. --74.14.121.250 (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

GREEK MINORITY IN FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect GREEK MINORITY IN FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA. Since you had some involvement with the GREEK MINORITY IN FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate
Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Feel free to participate in the journal.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
 * Publish an article to the journal. Even a medical student like you can make a submission.
 * Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
 * Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
 * Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
 * Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
 * Join the editorial board.
 * Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
 * Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
 * Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
 * Technical work like template designing for the journal.
 * Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to . If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at.
 * Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

 D ip ta ns hu Talk 05:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

Orphaned non-free image File:Maybach Foundation logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Maybach Foundation logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)